4 ms·

> 58.4% of the group voted to go on with publication, and the W3C did so today, an unprecedented move in a body that has always operated on consensus and compro

> 58.4% of the group voted to go on with publication, and the W3C did so today, an unprecedented move in a body that has always operated on consensus and compromise. What exactly is the EFF saying should have happened? More than 50% voted to go ahead with it. The majority voted for it. I don't see how the W3C going with the majority vote is a dick move. Consensus and compromise is obviously very important, but when one side is strictly anti-DRM, it's pretty hard to compromise. This just seems like the EFF being bitter that they lost and trying to disparage the W3C.

ctrl-j 9y ago
> Consensus and compromise is obviously very important, but when one side is strictly anti-DRM, it's pretty hard to compromise. When it's the first time they've broken with consensus, and the decision is very much not in the best interests of the common user - it's kind of a big deal. DRM may be a necessity for corporations to feel they can make money safely - it's not consumer friendly, and it certainly doesn't need to be a part of the open standard.
- eridius 9y ago
  But it is in the interests of the common user. It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell. People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). But that belief is hopelessly naive. Sites like Netflix are never going to stop using DRM. They're contractually obligated to use it. Without EME, Netflix has to rely on plugins like Silverlight. With EME, Netflix can ship an HTML5 experience that works everywhere. That's good for users.
  - bzbarsky 9y ago
    The EFF wasn't pushing for "don't standardize EME". It was pushing for "add a clause to the EME standard that prevents it being abused in certain specific user-hostile ways". In particular, it would prevent it being abused to prevent actions by users that are perfectly legal under existing copyright law. This is a complex topic with a lot of nuance to discuss, but I don't see how misrepresenting the EFF's position helps the discussion in any way.
  - ctrl-j 9y ago
    > People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). When did I say that? Specifically? Why did you assume I'm ignorant of the way corporations operate? That's on you. Not me. > It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell. Except the standard that they adopted is not friendly to the end-user. So "Non standard plugin hell" becomes "standard DRM hell." A while back Widevine stopped working for me after an update. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. End result? Almost no video played in my browser. You know what still would have worked? Pirate Bay. You can spin it however you want. DRM is good for content providers. It's not good for users. If Netflix requires DRM - so be it. They've got good engineers, they can provide a DRM plugin that you have to use. Or a standalone player. If a service doesn't have good engineering, their service will suffer. It doesn't need to be a part of the open web standard.
    - Furmark 9y ago
      > A while back Widevine stopped working for me after an update. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. End result? Almost no video played in my browser. You were doing something wrong perhaps. I have never installed widevine, yet all videos online worked for me. Try uninstalling it completely.
Crespyl 9y ago
Part of the EFFs frustration is that the anti-DRM side were willing to compromise, by passing the standard with the addition of agreements to, for example, not sue security researchers who might try to fuzz a CDM or figure out how it worked. It was the pro-DRM side that were unwilling to make even such a minimal good-faith compromise.
- eridius 9y ago
  How many people of the anti-DRM side were willing to pass it anyway? Because judging by all of the HN commentary I've seen in the past there are plenty of people who are hard-line no DRM under any circumstances.
bzbarsky 9y ago
If you think one side is "strictly anti-DRM", you haven't read the article.

ctrl-j 9y ago

> Consensus and compromise is obviously very important, but when one side is strictly anti-DRM, it's pretty hard to compromise. When it's the first time they've broken with consensus, and the decision is very much not in the best interests of the common user - it's kind of a big deal. DRM may be a necessity for corporations to feel they can make money safely - it's not consumer friendly, and it certainly doesn't need to be a part of the open standard.

eridius 9y ago
But it is in the interests of the common user. It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell. People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). But that belief is hopelessly naive. Sites like Netflix are never going to stop using DRM. They're contractually obligated to use it. Without EME, Netflix has to rely on plugins like Silverlight. With EME, Netflix can ship an HTML5 experience that works everywhere. That's good for users.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  The EFF wasn't pushing for "don't standardize EME". It was pushing for "add a clause to the EME standard that prevents it being abused in certain specific user-hostile ways". In particular, it would prevent it being abused to prevent actions by users that are perfectly legal under existing copyright law. This is a complex topic with a lot of nuance to discuss, but I don't see how misrepresenting the EFF's position helps the discussion in any way.
- ctrl-j 9y ago
  > People like you seem to think that if the W3C rejected DRM then sites would stop using it (and hence this being for the benefit of the user). When did I say that? Specifically? Why did you assume I'm ignorant of the way corporations operate? That's on you. Not me. > It's absolutely beneficial for browsers to have a standardized API for this stuff instead of non-standard plugin hell. Except the standard that they adopted is not friendly to the end-user. So "Non standard plugin hell" becomes "standard DRM hell." A while back Widevine stopped working for me after an update. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. End result? Almost no video played in my browser. You know what still would have worked? Pirate Bay. You can spin it however you want. DRM is good for content providers. It's not good for users. If Netflix requires DRM - so be it. They've got good engineers, they can provide a DRM plugin that you have to use. Or a standalone player. If a service doesn't have good engineering, their service will suffer. It doesn't need to be a part of the open web standard.
  - Furmark 9y ago
    > A while back Widevine stopped working for me after an update. Uninstalling and reinstalling didn't work. End result? Almost no video played in my browser. You were doing something wrong perhaps. I have never installed widevine, yet all videos online worked for me. Try uninstalling it completely.

Crespyl 9y ago

Part of the EFFs frustration is that the anti-DRM side were willing to compromise, by passing the standard with the addition of agreements to, for example, not sue security researchers who might try to fuzz a CDM or figure out how it worked. It was the pro-DRM side that were unwilling to make even such a minimal good-faith compromise.

eridius 9y ago
How many people of the anti-DRM side were willing to pass it anyway? Because judging by all of the HN commentary I've seen in the past there are plenty of people who are hard-line no DRM under any circumstances.

bzbarsky 9y ago

If you think one side is "strictly anti-DRM", you haven't read the article.